ED101802b: Spurning a CARE Package

About the Author

President Bush's faith-based legislation, stalled in the Senate
for months, is going nowhere this year. The reason given is that
the proposal, by opening up federal funds to religious groups
serving the poor, would create a church-state quagmire. The real
reason is a growing and unprecedented contempt for the religious
values that animate many private charities.

Legislation passed by the House of Representatives last year would
extend the 1996 federal "charitable choice" law, which allows
faith-based groups taking government money to keep control over the
"practice and expression" of their beliefs and to use religion as a
factor in hiring. Though charitable choice has been signed into law
four times, House leaders opposed these protections in a testy
partisan fight. Senate leaders, hoping to avoid controversy,
introduced a compromise bill without the protections.

It didn't work. Critics now say the Charity Aid, Recovery and
Empowerment Act (CARE), which contains various tax incentives to
boost charitable giving, will usher in a new era of employment
discrimination. They want the bill amended to prevent any
organization from making faith commitment a factor in employment.
In other words, they want to reverse settled law.

The critics claim to be worried that social workers will be denied
jobs because of theology. In truth, they're bowing to gay-rights
activists, such as the Human Rights Campaign, who despise religious
groups that uphold traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexuality
and marriage. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is leading the
amendment effort, complains that "fundamentalists won't hire gays
or lesbians." Their mantra: The CARE Act will turn back the clock
on civil rights.

Nonsense. No private group -- secular or religious -- can remain
independent once government controls its membership and mission.
That goes for Planned Parenthood as surely as it does for the
Baptist Bible Club. The bill's opponents would revoke one of the
great gifts of the First Amendment: an open society that honors an
organization's right, through its staff and membership, to live out
its deepest beliefs and ideals. No right is more essential for
preserving both civic and religious freedom.

An earlier generation of political leadership understood this
democratic principle. The architects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
specifically protected the hiring rights of religious entities
under Title VII. Congress has extended these rights, and the
Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld them. It's the opponents of the
CARE Act who are trying to undo decades of federal employment
laws.

They ought to spend some time with the Good Samaritans actually
ministering to the nation's neediest. A study I recently conducted
for the University of Pennsylvania, which surveyed faith-based
groups assisting at-risk children, drives the point home: Nearly
all of the ministry leaders interviewed consider the religious
values of staff and volunteers vital to their work. "Kids are
always watching," explained Lisa Cromartie, director of Urban Youth
Ministries in Holland, Mich. "You need to be living a life that is
consistent with the ideas the ministry is teaching."

Such facts supposedly become irrelevant the moment a dime of
public money flows to private charities. During months of political
debate, Democrats likened the hiring policies of religious
organizations to the institutionalized racism of Southern
shopkeepers, circa 1950. They treated some of the nation's most
respected charities, such as the Salvation Army, with open
hostility. Sharon Daley, the chief lobbyist for Catholic Charities,
remarked that she'd never seen anything like it in her 22 years in
Washington.

Unfortunately, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. -- despite being one
of the chief architects of the CARE Act and an Orthodox Jew -- has
declined the opportunity to lead his grumbling colleagues out of
this wilderness. Though he praises the sacrificial work of the
nation's charities, the senator likewise frets about "federally
funded discrimination." Earlier this year he abandoned his pledge
to endorse charitable choice.

The White House, however, appears to be standing firm. President
Bush continually promises "to honor and not restrict" faith-based
organizations that partner with government. Jim Towey, director of
the president's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,
vows to oppose a bill that would strip charities of their hiring
rights. Meanwhile, on Bush's orders, federal agencies such as the
departments of Labor and Health and Human Services are rewriting
government regulations to end the bias against religious providers
in social-service funding.

It says something about our political culture when efforts to
extend the compassionate reach of churches, synagogues and
charitable organizations devolve into ideological skirmishing.
President Bush might have to veto a "faith-based" bill that,
ironically, removes protections for the faithful. That may or may
not put him on the side of the angels, but it surely would put him
on the side of religious liberty -- and not a moment too
soon.

Joseph
Loconte is the William E. Simon fellow in religion and a
free society at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) and a
regular commentator for National Public Radio.